But shifting the debate from legal right to practicle effect doesn't sit well. The legal right is known, the practicle effect basically unknown. Trying to tackle the practicle consequences is like holding a 2 ton bowling with 2 fingers; it's beyond the scope of this thread. But nobody has yet given even one contrary example and I gave 2.

The legal right is not as clear cut as youd like to imply. The 2nd amendment is not 100% clear cut to mean one has the right to bear arms whereever and whenever, at the cost of endangering the greater good (which as we all know, you somehow think is untrue).

To pose a hypo that will illistrate my point, one could argue the right to bear arms could also be interpreted to cover a bazooka, or a suitcase nuclear weapon. No one in their right mind could say my right to bear arms also covers these "arms" - especially for everyoen to have them on campus due to the danger theyd pose to the greater good. In the same light, i think a Sig Sauer in ever college student's back to school list poses a similarly unacceptable danger.

Re: your concern about legal right/practicality, it seems to me that this thread--and, indeed, any well thought out law--must focus on the practical ramifications of whatever action the law intends to modify or impel. I think the onus here lies with you, Freak, as the one who is proposing a change to current law (Federal law: guns are illegal 1,000 ft. w/in school zone). And I'm not really sure that your two examples (anecdotes, actually) really "prove" anything as the status quo prevents the existence of counter-anecdotes--which in this case would be examples of a bunch of gun-toting students at a school accidentally (or purposely) killing/maiming each other.